Hu FB, van Dam RM, Liu S. Diet and risk of Type II diabetes: The role of types of fat and carbohydrate. Diabetologia. 2001 Jul; 44(7): 805-817.
PubMed ID: 11508264
To review current evidence on the association between types of fat and carbohydrate and insulin resistance and T2D (T2D).
- Epidemiologic studies that examine the associations between dietary fat and carbohydrate and risk of developing hyperglycemia and T2D
- Included both prospective cohort studies and cross-sectional studies
- Examined specific fatty acids
- Subjects without T2D or IGT (IGT).
- Human diet intervention trials
- Did not examine specific fatty acids
- Subjects with T2D or IGT
- Animal studies.
14 epidemiologic studies and five cross-sectional studies of dietary fat and carbohydrate and association with hyperglycemia and T2D.
Dietary Intake/Dietary Assessment Methodology
Food-frequency questionnaires (FFQs) and diet history.
1974 to 2001.
Types of dietary fatty acids and carbohydrate.
- Initial N: 20 to 4,903
- Age: Adults (age range 25 to 89 years)
- Ethnicity: International
- Other relevant demographics: Observational studies conducted on men and women in specific sub-populations in the US, Europe and Israel
- Location: US, Europe, Israel.
- Higher intakes of polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) could improve glucose metabolism and insulin resistance
- Long-chain PUFA may also improve glucose metabolism and insulin resistance
- Higher intakes of saturated fatty acid (SFA) adversely affect glucose metabolism and insulin resistance
- High intakes of vegetable fat and PUFA were associated with a decreased risk of T2D.
Replacing SFA with PUFA could appreciably reduce risk of T2D.
Research Design and Implementation Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
|1.||Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients?|
|2.||Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about?|
|3.||Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to nutrition or dietetics practice?|
|4.||Will the information, if true, require a change in practice?|
|1.||Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate?|
|2.||Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described?|
|3.||Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified and appropriate? Were selection methods unbiased?|
|4.||Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methods specified, appropriate, and reproducible?|
|5.||Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined?|
|6.||Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered?|
|7.||Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently across studies and groups? Was there appropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described?|
|8.||Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels of significance and/or confidence intervals included?|
|9.||Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations of the review identified and discussed?|
|10.||Was bias due to the review’s funding or sponsorship unlikely?|